2013 New Jersey DOC Open Public Records Act (OPRA) Log

Dear Mr. Lipton,

Please see the attached correspondence & responsive documents regarding your recent Open Public Records Act (OPRA) request.

Thank you for your interest in the New Jersey Department of Corrections.

NJDOC Records Custodian

Dear Mr. Lipton,

Please see the attached correspondence regarding your recent Open Public Records Act (OPRA) request.

Thank you for your interest in the New Jersey Department of Corrections.

NJDOC Records Custodian

Mr. Lipton,

The Department of Corrections stands by our previous correspondence.

Thank you,

Records Custodian
NJDOC

Mr. Lipton,

The Department is in the process of evaluating this decision as it
relates to your OPRA request. We will contact you within ten business
days.

Thank you,

NJDOC Records Custodian

Mr. Lipton,

We are still in the process of reviewing the effects of the decision in
Scheeler v. Office of the Governor. We will contact you within five
business regarding your request.

NJDOC Records Custodian

Mr. Lipton,

The Department is still evaluating this court decision with respect to
your request. We will again contact you by August 27. Thank you for
your patience.

NJDOC Records Custodian

>>> Beryl Lipton <requests@muckrock.com> 7/22/2014 12:51
PM >>>

July 22, 2014
State of New Jersey Department of Corrections
Department of Corrections
Records Custodian
P.O. Box 863
Trenton, NJ 08625

This is a follow up to a previous request:

Hello,

Yesterday, the case Scheeler v. Office of the Governor, et. al. was
settled in Mercer County Superior Court. The case was in regards to the
denials of release of OPRA logs by New Jersey state agencies (as
occurred with this request), and the court ruled in favor of the release
of the records. (For reports regarding this ruling please see:
https://www.aclu-nj.org/news/2014/07/21/judge-orders-christie-administration-release-records
;
http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/news/ap/new-jersey-judge-to-decide-if-opra-requests-are-public/article_e155754c-10c0-11e4-955f-001a4bcf887a.html?utm_content=buffer157e5&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer).

As indicated by this ruling, the denial that your agency provided me
was unwarranted and I would appreciate the release of the requested
material before any further undue inconvenience is incurred.

Thank you so much for your time and help,

Beryl C.D. Lipton

---

On July 2, 2014:

Mr. Lipton,

The Department of Corrections stands by our previous correspondence.

Thank you,

Records Custodian
NJDOC

>>> Beryl Lipton <requests@muckrock.com> 7/1/2014 5:37
PM >>>

July 1, 2014
State of New Jersey Department of Corrections
Department of Corrections
Records Custodian
P.O. Box 863
Trenton, NJ 08625

This is a follow up to a previous request:

Hello Mr. Falvey,

Thank you for your response to my request for the Department of
Corrections's log of 2013 OPRA requests. I hope that you can please
clarify the reasons for which the request has been rejected.

It seems as though the list of requests, their statuses, and the other
basic data necessary for inventory and organizational purposes (the
agency’s OPRA log) is a standard government public record. As such it
should be available under OPRA. As indicated on page 7 of the New
Jersey
Open Public Records Act Handbook for Records Custodians, “All
government
records are subject to public access unless specifically exempt under
OPRA or any other law.” I don’t see the record in question as being
specifically exempted by the case to which you referred nor was it
covered by the specific exemptions contained in OPRA; the exemption
for
“information which, if disclosed would give an advantage to
competitors” does not seem to apply in this case.

Page six of the attached version of the case referred to in your
response (Gannett N.J. Partners, LP v. Cnty. of Middlesex, 379 N.J.
Super. 205, 212 (App. Div 2005)) includes the reasoning mentioned in
your rejection, specifically that “‘OPRA does not authorize a party to
make a blanket request for every document a public agency has provided
another party in response to an OPRA request,’ nor does it permit
requests that would reveal ‘the nature and scope of a third party’s
inquiry to a government agency.’” My request for the OPRA log does not
ask for the documents provided to another agency. It would not be
reasonable to assume that by obtaining a list of requests one would be
able to determine the nature of another party’s interest and purpose
in
requesting particular documents. The idea, it seems to me, is that by
obtaining all of the primary documents requested by a third party, one
could then determine the nature and scope, which may also be
unreasonable attitude, though is not relevant in this matter. I think
along those lines, the idea of “advantage to competitors” based on the
release of the OPRA log is a stretch, particularly considering that
the
log should be publicly available to all.

If you could clarify these points, I would appreciate it. I understand
that the appropriate channel of appeal would be the Government Records
Council, but the chance to understand the reasoning for denial would
be
helpful for all.

Sincerely,

Beryl C.D. Lipton

---

On April 4, 2014:

Dear Mr. Lipton,

Please see the attached correspondence regarding your recent Open
Public Records Act (OPRA) request.

Thank you for your interest in the New Jersey Department of
Corrections.

NJDOC Records Custodian

---

On April 1, 2014:

Hi there,

Thank you so much for responding promptly to my request.
Unfortunately,
I am having difficulty deciphering the pages that were sent along. I'd
also like to clarify that the log I desired would have included the
identity of the requester, the date the request was made, a
description
of the request, and its current status.

I would like this process to be as painless as possible for all
involved. It appears that the pages were printed from a database and
then scanned. In the interest of saving yourself time and paper,
perhaps
it may be easier, if possible, to export the necessary elements in the
database, keeping them in a clear, electronic format?

Thanks so much for your help.

Beryl Lipton

---

On April 1, 2014:

Dear Mr. Lipton,

Please see the attached correspondence & responsive documents
regarding
your recent Open Public Records Act (OPRA) request.

Thank you for your interest in the New Jersey Department of
Corrections.

NJDOC Records Custodian

---

On March 26, 2014:

To Whom It May Concern:

Pursuant to Open Public Records Act ("OPRA"), I hereby request the
following records:

The log of all OPRA requests made to the New Jersey Department of
Corrections during the year 2013

I also request that, if appropriate, fees be waived as I believe this
request is in the public interest. The requested documents will be
made
available to the general public free of charge as part of the public
information service at MuckRock.com, processed by a representative of
the news media/press and is made in the process of news gathering and
not for commercial usage.

In the event that fees cannot be waived, I would be grateful if you
would inform me of the total charges in advance of fulfilling my
request. I would prefer the request filled electronically, by e-mail
attachment if available or CD-ROM if not.

Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
I
look forward to receiving your response to this request within 7
business days, as the statute requires.

Sincerely,

Beryl Lipton

Filed via MuckRock.com
E-mail (Preferred): requests@muckrock.com

For mailed responses, please address (see note):
MuckRock News
DEPT MR 10935
PO Box 55819
Boston, MA 02205-5819

PLEASE NOTE the new address as well as the fact that improperly
addressed (i.e., with the requester's name rather than MuckRock News)
requests might be returned by the USPS as undeliverable.

---

On July 1, 2014:

Hello Mr. Falvey,

Thank you for your response to my request for the Department of
Corrections's log of 2013 OPRA requests. I hope that you can please
clarify the reasons for which the request has been rejected.

It seems as though the list of requests, their statuses, and the other
basic data necessary for inventory and organizational purposes (the
agency’s OPRA log) is a standard government public record. As such it
should be available under OPRA. As indicated on page 7 of the New Jersey
Open Public Records Act Handbook for Records Custodians, “All government
records are subject to public access unless specifically exempt under
OPRA or any other law.” I don’t see the record in question as being
specifically exempted by the case to which you referred nor was it
covered by the specific exemptions contained in OPRA; the exemption for
“information which, if disclosed would give an advantage to
competitors” does not seem to apply in this case.

Page six of the attached version of the case referred to in your
response (Gannett N.J. Partners, LP v. Cnty. of Middlesex, 379 N.J.
Super. 205, 212 (App. Div 2005)) includes the reasoning mentioned in
your rejection, specifically that “‘OPRA does not authorize a party to
make a blanket request for every document a public agency has provided
another party in response to an OPRA request,’ nor does it permit
requests that would reveal ‘the nature and scope of a third party’s
inquiry to a government agency.’” My request for the OPRA log does not
ask for the documents provided to another agency. It would not be
reasonable to assume that by obtaining a list of requests one would be
able to determine the nature of another party’s interest and purpose in
requesting particular documents. The idea, it seems to me, is that by
obtaining all of the primary documents requested by a third party, one
could then determine the nature and scope, which may also be
unreasonable attitude, though is not relevant in this matter. I think
along those lines, the idea of “advantage to competitors” based on the
release of the OPRA log is a stretch, particularly considering that the
log should be publicly available to all.

If you could clarify these points, I would appreciate it. I understand
that the appropriate channel of appeal would be the Government Records
Council, but the chance to understand the reasoning for denial would be
helpful for all.

Sincerely,

Beryl C.D. Lipton

---

On April 4, 2014:

Dear Mr. Lipton,

Please see the attached correspondence regarding your recent Open
Public Records Act (OPRA) request.

Thank you for your interest in the New Jersey Department of
Corrections.

NJDOC Records Custodian

---

On April 1, 2014:

Hi there,

Thank you so much for responding promptly to my request. Unfortunately,
I am having difficulty deciphering the pages that were sent along. I'd
also like to clarify that the log I desired would have included the
identity of the requester, the date the request was made, a description
of the request, and its current status.

I would like this process to be as painless as possible for all
involved. It appears that the pages were printed from a database and
then scanned. In the interest of saving yourself time and paper, perhaps
it may be easier, if possible, to export the necessary elements in the
database, keeping them in a clear, electronic format?

Thanks so much for your help.

Beryl Lipton

---

On April 1, 2014:

Dear Mr. Lipton,

Please see the attached correspondence & responsive documents regarding
your recent Open Public Records Act (OPRA) request.

Thank you for your interest in the New Jersey Department of
Corrections.

NJDOC Records Custodian

---

On March 26, 2014:

To Whom It May Concern:

Pursuant to Open Public Records Act ("OPRA"), I hereby request the
following records:

The log of all OPRA requests made to the New Jersey Department of
Corrections during the year 2013

I also request that, if appropriate, fees be waived as I believe this
request is in the public interest. The requested documents will be made
available to the general public free of charge as part of the public
information service at MuckRock.com, processed by a representative of
the news media/press and is made in the process of news gathering and
not for commercial usage.

In the event that fees cannot be waived, I would be grateful if you
would inform me of the total charges in advance of fulfilling my
request. I would prefer the request filled electronically, by e-mail
attachment if available or CD-ROM if not.

Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation in this matter. I
look forward to receiving your response to this request within 7
business days, as the statute requires.

Sincerely,

Beryl Lipton

Filed via MuckRock.com
E-mail (Preferred): requests@muckrock.com

For mailed responses, please address (see note):
MuckRock News
DEPT MR 10935
PO Box 55819
Boston, MA 02205-5819

PLEASE NOTE the new address as well as the fact that improperly
addressed (i.e., with the requester's name rather than MuckRock News)
requests might be returned by the USPS as undeliverable.

Mr. Lipton,

The Department has been advised that a motion has been filed to stay
the order in the Scheeler case. Should anything change, we will contact
you regarding your request.

NJDOC Records Custodian

>>> Beryl Lipton <requests@muckrock.com> 7/22/2014 12:51
PM >>>

July 22, 2014
State of New Jersey Department of Corrections
Department of Corrections
Records Custodian
P.O. Box 863
Trenton, NJ 08625

This is a follow up to a previous request:

Hello,

Yesterday, the case Scheeler v. Office of the Governor, et. al. was
settled in Mercer County Superior Court. The case was in regards to the
denials of release of OPRA logs by New Jersey state agencies (as
occurred with this request), and the court ruled in favor of the release
of the records. (For reports regarding this ruling please see:
https://www.aclu-nj.org/news/2014/07/21/judge-orders-christie-administration-release-records
;
http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/news/ap/new-jersey-judge-to-decide-if-opra-requests-are-public/article_e155754c-10c0-11e4-955f-001a4bcf887a.html?utm_content=buffer157e5&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer).

As indicated by this ruling, the denial that your agency provided me
was unwarranted and I would appreciate the release of the requested
material before any further undue inconvenience is incurred.

Thank you so much for your time and help,

Beryl C.D. Lipton

---

On July 2, 2014:

Mr. Lipton,

The Department of Corrections stands by our previous correspondence.

Thank you,

Records Custodian
NJDOC

>>> Beryl Lipton <requests@muckrock.com> 7/1/2014 5:37
PM >>>

July 1, 2014
State of New Jersey Department of Corrections
Department of Corrections
Records Custodian
P.O. Box 863
Trenton, NJ 08625

This is a follow up to a previous request:

Hello Mr. Falvey,

Thank you for your response to my request for the Department of
Corrections's log of 2013 OPRA requests. I hope that you can please
clarify the reasons for which the request has been rejected.

It seems as though the list of requests, their statuses, and the other
basic data necessary for inventory and organizational purposes (the
agency’s OPRA log) is a standard government public record. As such it
should be available under OPRA. As indicated on page 7 of the New
Jersey
Open Public Records Act Handbook for Records Custodians, “All
government
records are subject to public access unless specifically exempt under
OPRA or any other law.” I don’t see the record in question as being
specifically exempted by the case to which you referred nor was it
covered by the specific exemptions contained in OPRA; the exemption
for
“information which, if disclosed would give an advantage to
competitors” does not seem to apply in this case.

Page six of the attached version of the case referred to in your
response (Gannett N.J. Partners, LP v. Cnty. of Middlesex, 379 N.J.
Super. 205, 212 (App. Div 2005)) includes the reasoning mentioned in
your rejection, specifically that “‘OPRA does not authorize a party to
make a blanket request for every document a public agency has provided
another party in response to an OPRA request,’ nor does it permit
requests that would reveal ‘the nature and scope of a third party’s
inquiry to a government agency.’” My request for the OPRA log does not
ask for the documents provided to another agency. It would not be
reasonable to assume that by obtaining a list of requests one would be
able to determine the nature of another party’s interest and purpose
in
requesting particular documents. The idea, it seems to me, is that by
obtaining all of the primary documents requested by a third party, one
could then determine the nature and scope, which may also be
unreasonable attitude, though is not relevant in this matter. I think
along those lines, the idea of “advantage to competitors” based on the
release of the OPRA log is a stretch, particularly considering that
the
log should be publicly available to all.

If you could clarify these points, I would appreciate it. I understand
that the appropriate channel of appeal would be the Government Records
Council, but the chance to understand the reasoning for denial would
be
helpful for all.

Sincerely,

Beryl C.D. Lipton

---

On April 4, 2014:

Dear Mr. Lipton,

Please see the attached correspondence regarding your recent Open
Public Records Act (OPRA) request.

Thank you for your interest in the New Jersey Department of
Corrections.

NJDOC Records Custodian

---

On April 1, 2014:

Hi there,

Thank you so much for responding promptly to my request.
Unfortunately,
I am having difficulty deciphering the pages that were sent along. I'd
also like to clarify that the log I desired would have included the
identity of the requester, the date the request was made, a
description
of the request, and its current status.

I would like this process to be as painless as possible for all
involved. It appears that the pages were printed from a database and
then scanned. In the interest of saving yourself time and paper,
perhaps
it may be easier, if possible, to export the necessary elements in the
database, keeping them in a clear, electronic format?

Thanks so much for your help.

Beryl Lipton

---

On April 1, 2014:

Dear Mr. Lipton,

Please see the attached correspondence & responsive documents
regarding
your recent Open Public Records Act (OPRA) request.

Thank you for your interest in the New Jersey Department of
Corrections.

NJDOC Records Custodian

---

On March 26, 2014:

To Whom It May Concern:

Pursuant to Open Public Records Act ("OPRA"), I hereby request the
following records:

The log of all OPRA requests made to the New Jersey Department of
Corrections during the year 2013

I also request that, if appropriate, fees be waived as I believe this
request is in the public interest. The requested documents will be
made
available to the general public free of charge as part of the public
information service at MuckRock.com, processed by a representative of
the news media/press and is made in the process of news gathering and
not for commercial usage.

In the event that fees cannot be waived, I would be grateful if you
would inform me of the total charges in advance of fulfilling my
request. I would prefer the request filled electronically, by e-mail
attachment if available or CD-ROM if not.

Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
I
look forward to receiving your response to this request within 7
business days, as the statute requires.

Sincerely,

Beryl Lipton

Filed via MuckRock.com
E-mail (Preferred): requests@muckrock.com

For mailed responses, please address (see note):
MuckRock News
DEPT MR 10935
PO Box 55819
Boston, MA 02205-5819

PLEASE NOTE the new address as well as the fact that improperly
addressed (i.e., with the requester's name rather than MuckRock News)
requests might be returned by the USPS as undeliverable.

---

On July 1, 2014:

Hello Mr. Falvey,

Thank you for your response to my request for the Department of
Corrections's log of 2013 OPRA requests. I hope that you can please
clarify the reasons for which the request has been rejected.

It seems as though the list of requests, their statuses, and the other
basic data necessary for inventory and organizational purposes (the
agency’s OPRA log) is a standard government public record. As such it
should be available under OPRA. As indicated on page 7 of the New Jersey
Open Public Records Act Handbook for Records Custodians, “All government
records are subject to public access unless specifically exempt under
OPRA or any other law.” I don’t see the record in question as being
specifically exempted by the case to which you referred nor was it
covered by the specific exemptions contained in OPRA; the exemption for
“information which, if disclosed would give an advantage to
competitors” does not seem to apply in this case.

Page six of the attached version of the case referred to in your
response (Gannett N.J. Partners, LP v. Cnty. of Middlesex, 379 N.J.
Super. 205, 212 (App. Div 2005)) includes the reasoning mentioned in
your rejection, specifically that “‘OPRA does not authorize a party to
make a blanket request for every document a public agency has provided
another party in response to an OPRA request,’ nor does it permit
requests that would reveal ‘the nature and scope of a third party’s
inquiry to a government agency.’” My request for the OPRA log does not
ask for the documents provided to another agency. It would not be
reasonable to assume that by obtaining a list of requests one would be
able to determine the nature of another party’s interest and purpose in
requesting particular documents. The idea, it seems to me, is that by
obtaining all of the primary documents requested by a third party, one
could then determine the nature and scope, which may also be
unreasonable attitude, though is not relevant in this matter. I think
along those lines, the idea of “advantage to competitors” based on the
release of the OPRA log is a stretch, particularly considering that the
log should be publicly available to all.

If you could clarify these points, I would appreciate it. I understand
that the appropriate channel of appeal would be the Government Records
Council, but the chance to understand the reasoning for denial would be
helpful for all.

Sincerely,

Beryl C.D. Lipton

---

On April 4, 2014:

Dear Mr. Lipton,

Please see the attached correspondence regarding your recent Open
Public Records Act (OPRA) request.

Thank you for your interest in the New Jersey Department of
Corrections.

NJDOC Records Custodian

---

On April 1, 2014:

Hi there,

Thank you so much for responding promptly to my request. Unfortunately,
I am having difficulty deciphering the pages that were sent along. I'd
also like to clarify that the log I desired would have included the
identity of the requester, the date the request was made, a description
of the request, and its current status.

I would like this process to be as painless as possible for all
involved. It appears that the pages were printed from a database and
then scanned. In the interest of saving yourself time and paper, perhaps
it may be easier, if possible, to export the necessary elements in the
database, keeping them in a clear, electronic format?

Thanks so much for your help.

Beryl Lipton

---

On April 1, 2014:

Dear Mr. Lipton,

Please see the attached correspondence & responsive documents regarding
your recent Open Public Records Act (OPRA) request.

Thank you for your interest in the New Jersey Department of
Corrections.

NJDOC Records Custodian

---

On March 26, 2014:

To Whom It May Concern:

Pursuant to Open Public Records Act ("OPRA"), I hereby request the
following records:

The log of all OPRA requests made to the New Jersey Department of
Corrections during the year 2013

I also request that, if appropriate, fees be waived as I believe this
request is in the public interest. The requested documents will be made
available to the general public free of charge as part of the public
information service at MuckRock.com, processed by a representative of
the news media/press and is made in the process of news gathering and
not for commercial usage.

In the event that fees cannot be waived, I would be grateful if you
would inform me of the total charges in advance of fulfilling my
request. I would prefer the request filled electronically, by e-mail
attachment if available or CD-ROM if not.

Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation in this matter. I
look forward to receiving your response to this request within 7
business days, as the statute requires.

Sincerely,

Beryl Lipton

Filed via MuckRock.com
E-mail (Preferred): requests@muckrock.com

For mailed responses, please address (see note):
MuckRock News
DEPT MR 10935
PO Box 55819
Boston, MA 02205-5819

PLEASE NOTE the new address as well as the fact that improperly
addressed (i.e., with the requester's name rather than MuckRock News)
requests might be returned by the USPS as undeliverable.